Cliff Varnell

No where in Bugliosi's book does it mention that the bullet defects in JFK's clothing are about 3 inches below the "back of the neck" location required by the SBT. Here's what Bugliosi wrote in the CD accompanying the book: The physical evidence doesn't fit the official scenario -- so what? So what, Vince? The holes in the clothes match the T3 wound location recorded in the only back wound medical evidence executed according to proper autopsy protocol -- Burkley's death certificate and the autopsy face sheet diagram. So what? The photographic evidence proves beyond doubt that JFK's jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza? http://www.occamsrazorjfk.net/ So what, Vince? Care to explain how a tailored jacket and a tucked in custom made dress shirt dropped into an elevated position, Vince?

Excellent! My work here is done...carry on, Pat...

It's conclusions could still be true? Are you joking, Pat?

I agree. There were a series of these vertical beams with the symmetrical cuts. A hand held torch made those cuts? That would be some Cool Hand Luke!

Please demonstrate how the massive vertical steel tri-cores pancake collapsed in free-fall speed into their own footprint. This is like claiming that a lamp-post out on the street could pancake collapse into its own footprint! Anyone who questions the official lie is attacked. It takes extraodinary guts for people to come forward on this. The 9/11 Lie Machine is ever ready to slander and smear anyone who dares challenge their belief system. http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/o...24thur2-24.html

Craig, see: http://occamsrazorjfk.net/ ...Craig?

Dr. Steven Jones et.al. Published in Peer Reviewed Civil Engineering Journal http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

This thread still gets hits, so perhaps some loose ends should be tied. According to Craig Lamson there was an asymmetrical shirt/jacket bunch at the right base of JFK's neck in the Betzner photo. He illustrated thusly: What is it actually? Here's the corresponding Z-frame -- Z186. Arm/wrist/hand.

http://www.occamsrazorjfk.net/ http://subversivehistory.com/

I know someone who went to school with one of Heiberger's daughters. The impression this person got in talking about the JFK matter with the younger Heiberger was that something wasn't kosher with the FBI's examination the clothing -- and Heiberger himself was extremely protective of his family. fwiw... Is that what we see here? How did a bullet leave a semi-circular fabric slice and a small hole at the end of that slice? http://subversivehistory.com/ So the bullet penetrated the coat but not the shirt and somehow something from this shot travelled some 85 yards into the teeth of a hard swirling wind and maintained enough velocity to chip concrete and wound Tague... I think you need another hobby, Tom. All your pet theories are dead.

I didn't write the statement in bold above. I have no idea why you are attributing that statement to me. I think this is all part of the grief process you are going through, losing your pet theories and all. As far as the handwriting goes, at a glance it appears to be that of Robert Frazier. So what? I have also attended a course conducted by the FBI in "handwriting analysis" if it is of any consequence! I was not under the impression that you had attended any such course. The "Statement" is mine, as I just so happen to have attended a multitude of courses of instruction as run by the FBI. "As far as the handwriting goes, at a glance it appears to be that of Robert Frazier." Since I have examples of Robert Frazier's works, rest assured that it is not his! Since I do not have examples of Henry Heiberger's works, I assume, based on the entire realm of documents, that it is his laboratory "working notes". Try working on the extremely difficult "What makes a 4mm X 7mm Puncture type wound with relatively clean cut edges and also "punches" fabric down into the wound of entry, for now. It is not too difficult to resolve. Examination and comparison of handwriting quite probably exceeds the limitations of your grasp for now. P.S. If "control point" is under the collar, exactly what would one assume that the indication which is just below the edge of the collar represents? I fail to see the relevance of this gibberish. JFK's jacket clearly dropped in Dealey Plaza. http://www.occamsrazorjfk.net/ I see you can't muster any smart remarks about that.

Humes didn't describe the fabric slit accurately. Anyone can see for themselves. http://subversivehistory.com/

I didn't write the statement in bold above. I have no idea why you are attributing that statement to me. I think this is all part of the grief process you are going through, losing your pet theories and all. As far as the handwriting goes, at a glance it appears to be that of Robert Frazier. So what?

There is a semi-circular slice in the fabric in-consistent with any kind of projectile strike. So! In addition to being on the board for evaluation of "Best Dressed Man", you have now graduated to forensics as well. Watching your pet theories get slaughtered before your very eyes must be extremely painful, Tom. I sympathize completely. No, I really do. I had a pet theory once, and I had to watch it die when I received irrefutable evidence against it. I hope your period of denial and grief is brief, Tom. None of this has anything to do with the semi-circular fabric slice found with the upper defect in the coat. That semi-circular slice puts the lie to your claims, Tom.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JH: The upper defect is not a bullet hole. There is no corresponding hole in the shirt, and the defect is too small. There is a semi-circular slice in the fabric in-consistent with any kind of projectile strike. http://subversivehistory.com/ TP: Coat collars "raise"! Buttoned down shirts with ties holding them, seldom do so! Jackets fall. http://occamsrazorjfk.net/

That's where the "researcher" part of this equation comes in. Tucked-in custom-made dress shirts only have about 3/4" of available slack. JFK wore suits designed by Paul Stuart, who "suppressed" the waists of his suits in the manner of European men's fashion designers. This look is called Updated American Silhouette, wherein the clothing is tailored to fit close to the torso. But the facts of the case aside, Tom, surely you can observe the movement of your own clothing? When you move a little, your shirt moves a little. Your shirts don't spontaneously leap about your body -- such a claim is an egregious absurdity. And you were born with enough sense to state that jacket collars and shirt collars don't move in tandem. And yet your "theory" requires JFK's shirt and jacket to have moved 3.5" in tandem, contrary to the nature of reality. Demonstrate how custom shirts and jackets ride up 3.5" . Replicate your claims using a tucked-in custom-made dress shirt fit to the Updated American Silhouette style. You cannot do so, because such is contrary to the nature of reality. Nor can you identify where JFK's jacket was elevated the 3.5" your theory requires. And you certainly can't reconcile this claim with the Dealey Plaza photos and films which show the jacket dropped! http://occamsrazorjfk.net/ Non sequitur: Tom's theory requires JFK shirt and jacket to have elevated 3.5" in tandem. Clothing moves. Therefore, JFK's shirt and jacket elevated 3.5" in tandem. This is what LNers do: repeat this non sequitur exclusively and endlessly. This from a man determined to maintain his ignorance of either clothing fit or what the Dealey Plaza photo evidence shows. And hopefully they will understand that a jacket dropping is not the same thing as a jacket rising. And, with luck, these folks will understand that 3/4" does not equal 3.5".

Failure to understand the evidence has no bearing on the validity of that evidence. As a general rule, it merely means that one does not understand the evidence. (Tom Purvis) Coat collars "raise"! And coat collars "fall." JFK's jacket collar clearly fell in Dealey Plaza. http://occamsrazorjfk.net/ The first two images in the link above are from the Houston St. segment of the Nix film. The first image shows JFK leaning forward chatting with Nellie, his shirt collar not visible at the back of his neck. A split second later he leaned back and his jacket dropped, exposing the shirt collar. The third image was taken on Main St. about 2 minutes before the shooting. Note JFK's head was turned to the right and he was waving his right arm. Note there was a diagonal fold in the back of the jacket, and the top of the jacket rode up into JFK's hairline. The fourth image is Betzner #3 taken at Z186. Same posture: head turned to the right, right arm waving. Very similar fold in the jacket. The major difference between the Main St. photo and the Elm St. photo is the highly visible shirt collar on Elm St. JFK's jacket obviously dropped. Very good. Custom made shirts do not move the same as jackets. According to you, Tom, JFK's tucked-in custom made dress shirt rode up 3.5 inches in tandem with the jacket. You couldn't replicate this event using two hands to pull. Check with them for what? We can measure the bullet hole in the jacket and we can observe the Dealey Plaza films and photos and clearly see JFK's jacket dropping. If you were interested in actual research, Tom, you would have researched clothing movement and studied the photographic evidence.

The upper defect is not a bullet hole. There is no corresponding hole in the shirt, and the defect is too small.

http://subversivehistory.com/

Len will have his usual: Kool Aid.

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/...s-have-now.html

Varnell auto-pilots, bored: Craig repeats himself yet again: And I have shown just that with the measurement of Croft. Here it is again with 3 different points on the jacket represented with a colored "X". The blue "X" marks a point inside the cupped fold. The pink "X" marks a point on the right top of the fold, and the purple "X" marks a point on the back of the jacket. No where is it established that these points line up vertically. That is the flawed root logic at work here. Because we cannot see the bottom of the cupped fold nor can we see the bottom of the jacket collar, it is not possible to trace a straight line down from the jacket collar. It is obvious that a 3-dimensional object will be reduced to two dimensions in a photograph. Can Craig be any more ludicrous in his analysis? Indeed. I wrote in regards to the fit of JFK's clothes: Craig sputtered: And now we get to the root of your problem. You can't tell us exaclty how the shirt fit JFK. You offer text from books explaining how things SHOULDor MIGTH work, but you offer us nothing on how things ACTUALLY worked. Did JFK's shirt only have 3/4 inchs of slack? You can't tell us, so you speculate and claim it as fact. What is the true nature of the fit of JFK's jacket and shirt? UNKNOWN, despite of the mountain of words offered by Cliff. The bottom line is that you have no clothing evidence Cliff, only endless speculation thinly disguised as fact. Very intellectually dishonest. If Craig Lamson understood the meaning of the phrases "clothing fit" and "Updated American Silhouette" then he would know EXACTLY how JFK's clothing fit him. But Craig isn't interested in facts, he's interested in pimping his Lone Nut true belief against all sense and reason. Clothing fit is the marriage of style and comfort. By choosing to wear Updated American style suits -- pioneered by fine men's clothing designer Paul Stuart -- JFK chose a style that featured a slender waist line, as influenced by European designers. Paul Stuart took the classic Ameican "Ivy League sack" suit and "suppressed" the waist-line, defined as "tailored closely to the shape of the torso." http://www.filmnoirbuff.com/article/the-pa...-american-style From the above article: Because Craig has a reading comprehension problem, he ascribes to me the analysis of Mr. Shirt, who adamantly insisted that tucked-in custom-made shirts only require 3/4" of slack. Because Craig Lamson is as much an intellectual snob as he is intellectually dishonest, he maintains that clothing experts have no actual expertise and that they are just "some guys" with opinions that count for nothing. After all, Mr. Shirt isn't a photographer and can't know everything about everything, as Mr. Lamson does...<snicker> However, we know that JFK didn't go around with his shirt tail out and his shirts only had enough slack as was required for him to sit comfortably. This is one the central principles of fine men's dress, a fact Craig Lamson must deny in order to press his silly theories. CLOTHES AND THE MAN - THE PRINCIPLES OF FINE MEN'S DRESS (Alan Flusser) pg 79: (quote on) The body of the shirt should have no more material than is necessary for a man to sit comfortably. Excess material bulging around the midriff could DESTROY THE LINES OF THE JACKET...The length of the shirt is also an important concern. It should hang at least six inches below the waist so that it STAYS TUCKED IN WHEN YOU MOVE AROUND. (quote off, emphasis added) The reason that Craig won't attempt to replicate his absurd claims is because his claims are impossible to replicate.

I must respectfully disagree. You may not recall me, but I spoke with you for a bit at Cracking the Case in '05. When I brought up the subject of your examination of Willis #5 under a microscope, you rolled your eyes and said very dismissively: "Well, if you think that's evidence..." But that's not what has happened at all. The clothing defects, as prima facie evidence of conspiracy, have been largely shelved in favor of highly complex arguments which have not advanced the case an inch. I find it very sad that, among the current generation of researchers, the most vociferous champion of the clothing evidence is some Haight St. punk-rock poker house degenerate (that's me) who would never have an ounce of credibility in the mainstream media. Who cares? Given JFK's proven T3 back wound, the SBT fails on its trajectory. The NAA is moot. It was nothing but a Hoover scam in the first place, if my reading of its history is correct. Why the hell was it on the table in the first place? It was an FBI bluff and a significant part of the JFK research community bit on it hook-line-&sinker. After almost 30 years on the table? Who cares? The clothing defects establish at least 4 shots, and it doesn't take 30 years and advanced degrees to figure out that a fraction of an inch of fabric does not equal 2-3 inches of fabric. Absolutely! The DP photo-films are the "bedrock evidence in the case." I saw a guy give a presentation to that effect a couple of years ago, and I had to go up to him afterwards and shake his hand...

The film alteration argument has failed, in my book. Zap alteration argument is not only a waste of time, it clouds the important evidence to be found in the Dealey Plaza film-photos. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3uH7FHjCeQ

Did Newton get it wrong with his First Law? Care to tell us how the massive steel vertical tri-cores pancake-collapsed in free-fall speed directly in the path of greatest resistance?